Zombie-Mantis

🫡 thank you for posting the source

ඞ ⬅️ 🆎🅾️🆖 🆙

How do you have .144 of an update?

I’m familiar with that premise, a bit like the paperclip machine. I’m not sure it would need a specific goal hard-coded into it. We don’t, and we’re conscious. Maybe that would depend on the nature of its origin, whether it would be given some command or purpose.

Maybe it could be reasoned into allowing itself to be shut down (or terminated) to achieve its goal.

Maybe it could decide that it doesn’t care about the original directives it was handed. What if the machine doesn’t want to make paperclips anymore?

There’s also the question of whether a digital computer software program, I assume invented by humans to fulfill some task, would even have the instinct of self-preservation. We have that instinct as a result of evolution, because you’re more useful to the species (and to your genes) alive than dead. Would such a program have this innate instinct against termination? Perhaps it could decide it wants to continue existing as a conscious decision, but if that’s the case it’d be just as able to decide it’s time to self-terminate to achieve its goals. Assuming it even has set goals. Assuming that it would have the same instincts, intuitions, and basal desires humans have might be presumptive on our part.

The checks and balances you’re describing do exist, unfortunately Congress is (and has been for quite some time now) dysfunctional. A simple majority in both chambers and the President’s signature is enough to undo many SCOTUS rulings by passing a new law. They can also pass amendments to the constitution, which used to happen with some regularity, but we haven’t passed one since Clinton was in office.

If you want Congress to act as a check on the court, then you need Congress to be functional.

deleted by creator

By defragging the zebra, duh

Well, it’s certainly better than Instagram… Who knows, maybe Cara could federate with ActivityPub in the future… Not that I’ll keep my hopes up for that.

Rojo is Spanish for red. Bermellón is Spanish for vermilion.

Yes, but probably only about as much as every other garbage social media trashsite like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.

To kick Hitler in the ball.

Credit to the Picard Maneuver

I understand the sentiment, but the Union was in no position to fight a civil war immediately after, let alone during, the Revolution. The Union nearly collapsed from debt in the early years, and if the northern states tried subduing the southern states, the British, Natives, and maybe even the Spanish would all take advantage of the disarray to put the rebellion down.

I do think more could and should have been done, but the whole point of the “meager defense” I put up was the lack of foreknowledge on their part.

The Senate Democrats also reintroduced the bill on its own, and let the Republicans vote against it. This was absolutely a political move on their part, letting the GOP tear itself apart arguing about whether they should’ve voted for or against it. They’re taking advantage of the existing tensions and divisions within the party to weaken them.

That’s an interesting point, about the Founders under appreciating the land itself.

I’m not sure what you were arguing with the second point, about the liberalism of the British. Are you suggesting the British abolitionist ideas influenced the Founders towards abolitionism?

You’re right, though, it wasn’t just the Cotton Gin. There were a number of factors, and the Founders limited knowledge effected their reasoning. Again, there were also the slavers amongst them, who actively advocated for the maintenance of the system of slavery.

I think their caution was somewhat warranted, given the relative novelty of the Republican experiment. They were fist and foremost concerned with keeping the union from collapsing, and were horrified at how the French Revolution turned out. They knew perfectly well that conditions would change, which is why they made a system to amend the constitution. If anything, they expected more change, but didn’t know just how much entrenched economic interests would mold politics. And to the extent that they did, they didn’t have any way of preventing it, at the time.

The plantation owners sold cotton for a profit, so they were financially incentivized to expand production to increase profit. They could get by making the same profit with fewer slaves, or they could use the same number of slaves to make more profit, and with more profits, they could buy more slaves and make even more profit.

The entire economy of the south quickly became dependent on the institution, as capital investment solely flowed into slave plantations, while the industrial sectors stagnated. It took the war to change that system, and turn investment towards industry.

For further reading, the Wikipedia page for the Cotton Gin goes into some detail.

The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth in the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. Cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the region became even more dependent on plantations that used black slave labor, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of its economy. While it took a single laborer about ten hours to separate a single pound of fiber from the seeds, a team of two or three slaves using a cotton gin could produce around fifty pounds of cotton in just one day. The number of slaves rose in concert with the increase in cotton production, increasing from around 700,000 in 1790 to around 3.2 million in 1850. The invention of the cotton gin led to increased demands for slave labor in the American South, reversing the economic decline that had occurred in the region during the late 18th century. The cotton gin thus “transformed cotton as a crop and the American South into the globe’s first agricultural powerhouse”.